Mohammad Yousuf Kuchay vs. Union Territory Of J And K And Ors. (Sales Tax)

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority for the restoration of his GST number within seven days. The Competent Authority was directed to restore the GST number immediately, subject to the petitioner completing all requisite formalities, including filing returns and depositing taxes, penalty, and interest within seven days. The Court explicitly stated that this order would cease to operate if the petitioner failed to comply within the stipulated period. The Court also noted that it had not gone into the legal issue raised by the respondents regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, and nothing in the order should be construed as an expression of opinion on the maintainability of a petition under Article 226 when an alternative remedy of appeal is available. The ratio decidendi is that in similar circumstances, and in line with previous concessions, registration can be restored upon undertaking to clear dues, even if the appeal was dismissed on limitation, provided the petitioner complies with the conditions.

Facts

The petitioner, Mohammad Yousuf Kuchay, is aggrieved by the cancellation of his GST registration by the Sales Tax Officer, Circle Budgam, Kashmir, on November 28, 2020, following a show cause notice and the petitioner's reply. An appeal filed before the Appellate Authority, State Taxes, Appeals-II, Kashmir Division, Srinagar, was dismissed on February 28, 2025, as being barred by limitation. The petitioner then invoked Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court seeking restoration of his registration. The Court noted similar previous cases where registration was restored upon the petitioner's undertaking to deposit tax, penalty, and interest.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable despite the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal, particularly when the appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Article 226 and the principles of alternative remedy). Contentions: Petitioner: Argued for restoration of registration, relying on previous High Court orders in similar cases (WP(C) 873/2024 and WP(C) 182/2024) where registration was restored subject to compliance with statutory dues. The petitioner sought a direction for restoration. Respondents: Raised a legal issue regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, notwithstanding the dismissal of the appeal on limitation grounds. However, the specific arguments or precedents relied upon by the respondents on this point are not detailed in the judgment.